Its great to see Lessig getting into this issue.  He's a very, very smart and determined fellow and I suspect he'll bring some fresh and helpful perspective that builds on his ideas and experience in the IP/media/Internet space (as a side note, he's argued a copyright case before our beloved Supreme Court).  Thanks, Mike, for bringing this to our attention, and for the link.

Looks good and interesting Jerome.  I just subscribed. I like your "it's your dome" tag line, the backdrop, music and graphics.  Do you plan to continuing shooting from that location, and/or to add a second camera?

Good luck with it.  Anything you can tell us about your ongoing costs and how you plan to finance them?

The FCC originally authorized six or more cellular/PCS licenses but, over the years, the carriers have merged to where four companies dominate the market.  The cost structure of local telecom networks tends toward few players, and the history of the cellular industry shows that this'll happen unless regulators don't allow it.  

Short of such restrictions, the only real solution to promoting higher levels of competition in the high fixed cost telecom business is to have a structure that insures competition at the "service/application" layer.  That's the basic structure of the Internet.

So, you either have to regulate mergers more aggressively, mandate some form of net neutrality rules (for both wireline and wireless), promote neutral "public/muni" networks (wireless and/or fiber) and/or make spectrum available on an unlicensed basis that encourages market entry and the proliferation of distributed/mesh-type wireless Internet access networks (which is the typical architecture of today's muni-wireless nets).  

Otherwise you have what we have today and the likelihood of further mergers beyond that.

Glad to see another post on spectrum policy.  Though I don't want to sound like a broken record on this, I want to repeat my earlier comments noting that the FCC's pending "white space" proceeding (Docket 04-186) involves a lot more broadcast spectrum (150-200 MHz+) than the planned auction (a max of 60 MHz and probably 10-30 at best, practically speaking).  The "white space" (a.k.a. "guard band" channels dating back to the 1930s) also has equally good or better propagation characteristics than the 700 MHz spectrum up for auction.  And freeing this spectrum up for "public access" may be easier to accomplish administratively than the spectrum to be auctioned (which is on a fast track and is viewed by Congress as a "money maker" to help pay for the feds' bloated and distorted spending priorities).

The point I wanted to add here is that a compelling argument can be (and has been) made that "exclusive spectrum licensing" is an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment rights of non-licensees when "spectrum sharing" is feasible.

According to this argument, the 1934 Comm Act (and all the FCC licensing policy that's followed it) was only constitutional in light of the technical constraints associated with the perception of "spectrum scarcity" at that time (i.e., technology hadn't evolved to a point where we could all share the same spectrum).  This argument was made back in 1998 by law professors Yochai Benkler and Larry Lessig in a New Republic article: (http://thadk.net/ideas/lessigcopyright.h tml).  Similar arguments were made in recent "white space" filings by a consortium led by New America Foundation and including a wide range of consumer and public-interest groups, and others interested in unlicensed "public" spectrum and muni-wireless efforts.

Here's a few excerpts from the 1998 Benkler/Lessig piece:

The First Amendment...is strongly opposed to a system of licensing or prior restraint...When the state creates a regime where all speech must be licensed; when it establishes monopolies over valuable speech resources; when it erects a framework that concentrates, rather than decentralizes, opportunities for speech, then the state needs a very strong justification.

Necessity would be such a justification. If the only architecture for broadcasting that could work were the architecture of allocated spectrum, then spectrum allocation would be justified. But, when technology advances such that this concentrated architecture is no longer required, then "necessity" disappears and...the reason for this state-sponsored monopoly--abridging the freedom to speak without a license from the state--vanishes.

In my view, this argument is pretty clear and compelling, though it hinges on a determination that spectrum sharing is feasible and reasonably efficient, which is something the FCC is starting to test for the white space, using prototype gear provided by Microsoft, on behalf of a "high-tech" consortium whose other members are Intel, Google, Dell, HP and Philips Electronics.  This coalition's positions on the white space issue are very much in line with those of the "end user" coalition led by NAF.

Though it could come down to somewhat technical debates, it would be nice if there were some ways the netroots could weigh in on this to help insure the FCC isn't bullied by by broadcasters and other incumbents, which are arguing that they'll be subject to harmful interference if the white space is opened for unlicensed use.

While the immediate benefit of unlicensed white space is a whole bunch of high-quality spectrum available for unlicensed operation and better quality muni-nets, this issue has broader implications, as the Benkler/Lessig quotes suggest.

What we're really talking about here is the Internet-era equivalent of "universal service" in the 20th century telephone business.

Having just completed a report on spectrum and Internet policy, muni-wireless, neutral networks, etc., I'm increasingly convinced there's enough wireless spectrum (coming from broadcasters in 2009) and favorable-enough economics to provide free or near-free universal access to a "neutral" wireless network.  

I'm trying to come up with a name or phrase that would encapsulate this policy goal in a way that would get public (and politician) attention similar to what's been achieved with the term "network neutrality" and, in the old days, "universal service."  Below are some possibilities I've been considering.  If anyone reading this prefers one over the others, or has a better suggestion, please chime in, or send me an email at mitchipd@gmail.com.

universal wireless
universal wireless access
universal network access
universal neutral network access
universal Internet access
universal Internet service
universal IP access
universal IP service
wireless commons
public interest IP (PIIP) networks

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

This case underscores the problems in our patent system and the risks that these problems can be exploited for anti-competitive purposes--particularly by incumbent access providers--in the Internet space.  It also highlights the importance of patent reform.

These two articles have some helpful comments on this issue, but still leave a lot of questions unanswered about exactly what kind of patent-system reform is desirable (not to mention the political questions of how to make it happen).  Anyone know anything about patent-reform groups out there and what their views are?

http://news.com.com/Is+cable+in+Verizons +crosshairs/2100-7352_3-6175725.html?tag =nefd.lede
http://gigaom.com:80/2007/04/08/voip-pat ent-mess/

I forgot to mention that advertising can help pay for capital and operating costs of muni-wireless networks, if a community decides to go that route.  There's some debate about if and how this should be done, but it could help financially and I can see such ads providing value, not just being an annoyance or potential invasion of privacy.  This could be especially the case as location-based informational ad systems continue to develop in conjunction with better mobile devices. Google, among others is working in this area, with applications that include maps, GPs navigation, etc.  Imagine yourself visiting a city and trying to find a nearby restaurant, store or hotel that would serve your particular needs, and then get walking or driving directions to it.  These restaurants, stores and hotels would presumably pay for the chance to offer their services to you.  This would provide value to you and other network users, and also to these local businesses, while also helping to finance the network's costs.

Let local communities take a large responsibility for working out funding and keep in mind that this is an investment that will pay a return (and support the implementation of other reforms, including in healthcare), not a form of "consumption."  As we speak, the muni-wireless sector is exploring a wide range of funding and management approaches, including different forms of public-private partnerships.

In St. Cloud, FL, for example, the muni-wireless network's capital costs have been funded by the city's economic development fund, and, according to a consultant on the project, ongoing expenses are financed through cost savings to city agencies (e.g., dropping cellular and wireless broadband services).  Service is available to citizens for free and 77% of households have registered to use the service.  An early survey of users suggests that about half have dropped their previous ISP, which is saving the town's citizens a lot of money.  Nearly 94% of survey respondents were supportive or very supportive of the service, while more than 87% said they would encourage other communities to provide this type of service.

The FCC may (and should) soon authorize 100-150 MHz (on average) of "unlicensed" spectrum in the broadcast band (which, unlike current Wi-Fi bands, is very good for indoor coverage), which muni-wireless nets can use to add capacity and improve coverage, allowing for "next-generation" muni-wireless nets that can support more services and do a much better job of serving users while indoors. This spectrum is commonly referred to as "white space" because it was previously unused to avoid interference, something that's much less of a problem with modern technology.

There are also potential cost-savings and operational synergies with nex-gen "public safety" nets that will be built with other parts of the broadcast spectrum to be returned in 2009.  And the feds are (in my view stupidly) planning to spend a lot of money to deploy a first-responder network that serves only federal personnel, not local (typical short-sighted turf-protecting wastefulness).  If this money was pooled with local public safety and "muni-net" funding, it could go a long way toward financing a "public" infrastructure that served the "public safety" community, other "public service" entities (local govt, schools, even healthcare services), while also serving the "public interest" by providing free or very low-cost Internet access, all in an economically sustainable manner.  I refer to these as "Public Interest IP" networks, or PIIPs (pronounced "pipes.")

Equipment vendors, meanwhile, are already building systems to support such "multi-purpose" and "multi-user" networks, and are eager to include the "white space" spectrum if and when the FCC authorizes its use.

Other cost savings can come from new technical approaches by innovators like FON and Meraki, which have developed end-user wireless routers that allow sharing among multiple users (e.g., neighbors, especially in apartment buildings).  Today's network operators resist such "sharing," because they see it as eating into their revenue potential.  But a public muni-net trying to minimize cost while maximizing coverage and capacity would be happy to have groups of users extend the network on their own dime (by buying one of these routers) to provide themselves with better coverage and capacity.

And, over time, muni-fiber extensions can be justified by the growing communication needs of public agencies, schools, etc.  As these occur, they expand the capacity that can be supported by the wireless access network, by extending the virtually unlimited capacity of fiber closer to end users.  In time, fiber to the home could potentially be justified, as the value of high-capacity connectivity increases (e.g., education, healthcare applications).

As needed, private companies can be hired to help with this, just as is done with roads and other public infrastructure.  In St. Cloud, HP is managing the network build and operation.

I was just reading something about how the federal budget makes no distinction between capital and consumption budgets.  This is a fundamental failing of the federal government and budget process, and reflects the unreality that dominates DC policy circles.  Then there's the Iraq war, which is a mind-bogglingly large and tragic waste of hundreds of billions of dollars.  

I think the Dems would be smart to emphasize the need and value of a long-term and synergistic infrastructure investment program that could include broadband as well as healthcare, energy, public safety, education, etc.  Building a strong country is different in substance, strategy and symbolism vs. trying to put band-aids on symptoms as they become critically acute.  This takes leadership with vision and courage, not just tactical smarts.  Personally, I'm beginning to think that Edwards may have it and maybe even Obama. And even HRC may have enough of it underneath the political caution and control.

Bottom line, an investment in public wireless networks is is one that can and should be made smartly and that would support the implementation of reforms in healthcare, education, good-government, energy efficiency, etc.  In key respects, universal broadband connectivity can serve as the "nervous system" of a New America (hat tip here to the New America Foundation which, along with a coalition of high-tech companies is leading the charge to convince the FCC to free up the broadcast spectrum I mentioned earlier, and also proposes a range of other very sensible policy reforms).

Do citizens and union members want universal high capacity connectivity to be provided by profit-seeking, vertically-integrated duopolists or by non-profit, publicly accountable entities eager to provide neutral high-capacity IP connectivity to support economic growth, more efficient public services and other benefits that today's dominant access providers consider "externalities" they cannot adequately monetize?  That's the question that needs to be asked and answered.

Matt,

I assume you're talking about the filing and press conference this week by a coalition of consumer groups to get 30 MHz of the planned 60 MHz of broadcast spectrum to be auctioned on the condition that the licensee operate as a "neutral" access network.  I think that's a great idea.  My understanding is that the FCC may rule on it as early as its April 24 meeting, so time may be of the essence.

While having 30 MHz of open-access network would be great, there's also 100-200 MHz+ per market that the Commission is considering making available on an unlicensed basis.  This is also in the broadcast band, but at lower frequencies, which in some ways are superior, though all of the broadcast band is relatively strong for indoor coverage.  This is also a pending FCC proceeding but, unlike the one you reference, has more technical issues at play.  On one side is a coalition of hi-tech companies, including Google, Microsoft, Intel, HP, Dell and Philips, along with New America Foundation and some of the other groups at yesterday's press conference, pushing to have the spectrum made available on an unlicensed basis.  On the other side are broadcasters and a few other "incumbents."

Winning both of these fights could be a game changer.  Though I support the recent filing for the 30 MHz, I think the unlicensed spectrum (a.k.a. "white space") offers more potential.  I'm also a little concerned that, even if the pressure becomes intense, the Martin Commission will be able to get away with providing the "open access" condition on only one licensee, covering 10 MHz.  That would be a step forward, but probably not one that would have much market impact.  With 30 MHz you're starting to have some significant capacity.  My personal push, reflected in a report I just wrote, is to make sure the Commission frees up the maximum amount of white space spectrum for unlicensed use and/or assign some of it to municipal open-access networks.  There could also be cooperation with public safety, in terms of sharing costs and coordinating network deployment and even services.  The acronym I use to describe my proposal is "PIIPs" (pronounced "pipes"), which stands for "Public Interest IP" networks (which could be either wireless or fiber).

In addition to Tim Wu, Susan Crawford and Yochai Benkler have important things to say about this stuff.   The beauty of pushing the neutrality issue related to spectrum (especially spectrum that's not yet been assigned) is the fact that the electromagnetic spectrum, as you note, is a public asset.  And, unlike the early days of broadcasting, there are clear ways it can now be used to DIRECTLY serve the public interest by providing open (and potentially very low-cost or even free) access to the Internet, which is an incredibly democratic and powerful communication medium.

Too much to say on this after writing a 140 page report, so I'll shut up.....but good to see you posting on this.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making. But, using your terminology, shouldn't the key question then be how best to un-entrench them, and maybe even before that, what you're un-entrenching them from?

"I think we could use some wireless net neutrality about now.  This is very dangerous. And these are the same telecom elites that are asking for control over the internet itself."

Fighting for wired and wireless NN is one approach, but it is inherently partial, defensive and uphill.

What's needed is spectrum (and, over time, fiber) that provides neutral, low-cost IP connectivity.  The FCC is now digesting comments in a proceeding on how to deal with the "white space" portions of the TV band, which have great propagation characteristics for penetrating trees, buildings and for low-cost devices.  This, layered on top of the existing 2.4 GHZ band used for muni-wireless nets, can go a long way toward providing that kind of connectivity.  I'm in the process of completing a report on this. My view is that, if you want a "good fight" you'll never fully win, put all your energy into NN.  If you want a strategy for achieving the goal more directly and fully, then help push for unlicensed white space (or the variation on it I'll be proposing in my report) and start talking to local community, political and business leaders about developing a long term "muni-fiber" strategy.

Tim Wu's paper is great and important. So is one in the works by Susan Crawford, Professor, Cardoza School of Law.  I've seen a draft, and hope to see it published soon.  Below are a few excerpts from the draft I've seen. I hope Susan doesn't mind me posting them here.

I think Susan's paper is important in large part because it provides a new and accurate framework for Internet-centric economic analysis of communication policy issues.  That framework can replace the traditional economic perspective that too often is used (improperly, but with lots of impressive-looking equations) to justify vertically integrated duopoly Internet access markets and an obsession with spectrum auctions.

Susan adopts a "growth economics" perspective that focuses on the Internet's unprecedented ability to provide a highly efficient mechanism for generating, evaluating, expanding, synthesizing, proliferating and applying new ideas.  

[I]n recent years, traditional economics has had to open its doors to work that rigorously examines the sources of increased productivity and focuses on the centrality of new ideas to economic growth.  This research has transformed economics from a dismal science, preoccupied with the scarcity of  land, labor, and capital...into a field that spends much of its time focusing on abundance, increasing returns, and the power of new ideas...

The internet provides a particularly fertile environment for the development of these  diverse new thoughts that will drive growth.  It supports the development of groups and other forms of online communication that are potentially highly responsive to the feedback of human beings and highly likely (given the enormous scale and connectivity of the internet) to trigger exponential development of unpredictably diverse new ideas...

The key organizing principle for communications law must be to support the emergence of diverse new ideas online because that is where economic growth for society as a whole will come from.  This form of diversity support is not the same as the kind of quota-driven artificial "diversity" that has been used to force broadcast content regulation to reflect minority viewpoints.  Rather, this kind of online diversity stems from allowing the end-to-end, content-neutral, layer-independent functions of the internet to flourish and allowing groups and human attention to pick and choose from among the bad ideas presented online, enabling good ideas to persist and replicate...

Prioritization will make a difference because network providers will cease to be commodity transport-providers and will instead become gatekeepers, pickers-of-winners, and controllers-of-experiences on a massive scale.  The diversity of online experiences, and thus the range of freedom of human connection, human relationships, and the diverse generation of new ideas will diminish...

Neutrality of symmetric high speed access is important for a host of reasons:  it will enable diverse new applications to emerge that are not controlled by network providers; it will cause new forms of interaction to grow, even apart from the introduction of applications; and it will enable diversity in various real-time communications that otherwise will be controlled and monetized by the network providers.  All of this diversity has great potential to be positively associated with economic growth.

Sorry to go off topic here, but I wanted to post a comment triggered by a Breaking Blue post you did Matt:

First of all, I'm glad to see you picking up on that wireless net neutrality paper by Tim Wu and to see him taking the time to address that issue.  I hope to read it myself soon.  

On another wireless front, there's a pending FCC proceeding (comments filed end of January, replies due March 2) about opening up big chunks of high-quality broadcast spectrum for unlicensed use after broadcasters return their analog spectrum in early 09.  

Like Wu's paper, this FCC proceeding is part of the broad and expanding debate on "open vs. closed networks" as it relates to wireless.  Broadcasters want rules that severely limit spectrum use, especially for personal/portable devices, while Google, Intel, MSFT, HP and Dell are arguing for a regime that could open up the possibility of creating next-generation muni/open access wireless networks that could potentially change the whole competitive dynamic in broadband.  

New America Foundation in DC is also leading the charge on this, and the NAF web site has an assortment of very good papers on this issue, some of which are not that technical.
http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wirel ess_future

The proceeding is FCC Docket 04-186. If you go to this URL:  http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsr ch_v2.cgi you can get access to the comments file by typing 04-186 in the "Proceeding" box at the upper left.  Most of the comments are pretty technical, related to interference, etc.

It's also possible to submit comments, and I noticed there are some short email filings that have been submitted by individual citizens.  It might be nice for the FCC to hear from MyDDers and other citizens who want more spectrum opened up for unlicensed use.  If their rules lean too far toward protecting broadcasters (and cable operators), it could kill, or at least seriously restrict, the potential of this spectrum to provide a high-capacity alternative open network.  Broadcasters, of course, are very good at this regulatory game, with a lot more experience than the hi-tech coalition that's arguing the other side of the issue.

Reply comments are due March 2.

Some info on how to file comments is at these links.  I believe there's a way to file comments by email (see second link):
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/uploa d_v2.cgi
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/email.html

Seems fascinating and important.  Good to see you involved, Matt, and thanks for the post.  Keep em coming.  This is important infrastructure building, and I have a feeling the MyDD community will be able to contribute to the effort.